linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 10:19:34 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rob Gardner <rob.gardner@...cle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        hpa@...or.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, nitin.m.gupta@...cle.com,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, tushar.n.dave@...cle.com,
        sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        adam.buchbinder@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        allen.pais@...cle.com, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        atish.patra@...cle.com, joe@...ches.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        jslaby@...e.cz, cmetcalf@...lanox.com,
        paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, jmarchan@...hat.com,
        lstoakes@...il.com, 0x7f454c46@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, hannes@...xchg.org, namit@...are.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid@...ehiking.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] sparc64: Add support for Application Data
 Integrity (ADI)

On Thu 05-01-17 13:30:10, Khalid Aziz wrote:
[...]
> It is very tempting to restrict tags to PAGE_SIZE granularity since it makes
> code noticeably simpler and that is indeed going to be the majority of
> cases. Sooner or later somebody would want to use multiple tags per page
> though.

I didn't get to read the patch throughly yet but I am really confused by
this statement. The api is mprotect based which makes it ineherently
PAGE_SIZE granular. How do you want to achieve cache line granularity
with this API?

And I would really vote for simplicity first... Subpage granularity
sounds way too tricky...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs